dwstow46 wrote:HOW DO I ADD FIRST WORT HOPS INTO MY RECIPES,SO IT SHOWS UP AS FIRST WORT HOPS

Within your 'ingredients' screen there is a column titled "Stage" (between the name of the ingredient and boil time), with a small arrow on the right side on each ingredient line; the arrow opens a 'drop down menu' which includes 'First Wort Hopping' as an option for your different hop additions.

The thing is that changing the stage doesn't change the IBU contribution. It is my understanding in FWH the hops are added to the wort pre-boil, but the contribution is more like a 20 minute addition. BTP doesn't seem to adjust for that.

From what I've read recently, analysis shows that first wort hops add as many (or a bit more) IBUs as your bittering hops, but the taste is much different. Most people agree that the taste is like 20-min hops, so that's what I use for calculating my first wort hops contribution. I haven't done it in BTP, though.

It turns out that first wort hops contribute the same IBUs (maybe 10% more) as a 60 minute hop addition, so I suppose nothing else needs to be changed.

Some of us think the nature of the bitterness is somehow different, however, and that leads to a perception of lower IBUs closer to a 20 or 30 minute addition. Some don't agree, Jamil for example, so it may be dependent on some brewery-to-brewery variable.

My understanding (I've never done it) is that FWH are added to the kettle while the runnings are collected, and that they remain in the kettle during the entire boil. This raises a couple of questions in my mind.

First, I think initial natural inclination would be to say that the hops are exposed for the entire length of the boil and are therefore being utilized accordingly; but there is one variable that I don't think that BTP is capable of considering -- and I also have a suggestion and questions about how BTP is functioning with FWH.

I'll do the suggestion/questions first. When 'FWH' is selected as the stage, I think that BTP should default to the 'Wort Boil Duration' in the upper panel -- but that's a minor point. I only suggest it because I think it might be too easy for a brewer to say: "I think I'll change my recipe to try FWH" and not be mindful that the boil time needs to change in the recipe. Incidentally, if you are going to use FWH, you ought to use your 'Utilization' panel to select something diffferent than "Basic Boil Time Graph" or else BTP won't reflect any additional IBU's extracted for the boil time in excess of the more typical 60 minutes; once you select something like "Mosher", you will see that the IBU contribution changes as you change the "Wort Boil Duration" at the top, even if you don't change the "Boil Time" for that particular hop addition in the ingredients section. Seems like there is a slight problem there, which I think will be corrected as soon as they are fixed so that selecting FWH defaults to whatever the "Wort Boil Duration" is. In other words, I find it curious that I can vary the "Wort Boil Duration" and see a difference in IBUs, but at the same time, I can increase the boil time for the actual hop addition in the ingredients section and, although still below the time for the "Wort Boil Duration", still see an increase in IBUs -- even though increasing the time on that line certainly isn't increasing the _total_ time for my boil. It just seems inconsistent and incorrect to me, and that either one of the other should _exclusively_ control the utilization.

My concern with IBUs is also based on my understanding that if you add hops prior to completing the first stage of boil (usually recommended to be about 30 minutes), that the resins will stick to some of the proteins ... or whatever ... that have not yet precipitated. Not being a chemist, I don't know if that would prevent the extraction of IBUs (it wouldn't seem logical to me) ... and I'm not even sure that the resins contain any of the alpha acids, so please treat this as more of a question for discussion than as any statement of opinion or fact. I base the above on information provided here: http://bavarianbrewerytech.com/news/boilhops.htm

At any rate, perhaps the IBUs are absolutely correct, and BTP is okay. My last comment, though, is about methodology based on the above URL. I'm not suggesting that FWH doesn't work and provide some pleasant results; I'm asking how and why. I understand that that both flavor and aroma components of hops are volatile and easily boiled off, thus the reduced boil time for those hop additions. So why are they not completely boiled off during the boil time that exceeds even the bittering additions when they are added as FWH? Are those components somehow "fixed" in some sort of a sub-boil chemical reaction? Second, aside from whether alpha acids are contained in any resins, it is my understanding that aroma and flavor components _DO_ come from resins, and the above website therefore suggests to me that they will be subject to precipitation with tannins and proteins -- thus some of them should not end up in our beer. Another reason that FWH doesn't appeal to me is that the total boil time can very easily vary from batch to batch, depending upon the beginning volume and variable boil off rates that can be too easily affected by weather. Lastly, it is not recommended that hops be boiled longer than 60 minutes due to he possibility of extracting 'harsh' and unwanted flavors; if this is true, there is no way to avoid boiling the FWH _FAR_ in excess of the normal 60 minute limit.

Again, I can't speak from experience because I've never tried FWH ... but it does leave a lot of questions in my mind. If anyone can provide any input, I'd like to hear about it. And play with a recipe after setting your 'boil time' utilization to 'Mosher' and selecting FWH, and see what I mean.

IBU contribution doesn't really increase much more with a greater than 60 minute boil.

I find that FWH contributes a smoother bitterness, not harsher. While the IBU contribution is essentially identical to a 60' addition, the perception is of lower IBU. Possibly because of that smoother bitterness. I'd say it's somewhat similar to late hopping, or hop-bursting, in that respect.

I get more flavor and aroma from FWH than from a 60' boil. This makes it a great way for me to get more from my hops. If I'm using a bittering hop that I wouldn't mind showing up in the flavor and aroma, I routinely build my recipe around FWH.

Disclaimer: FWH is poorly understood and poorly studied. Some people agree with my experiences with FWH and others disagree.

I've tried this about 5 times now and to be honest, I can't really tell a difference. I haven't noticed a smoother bitterness or anymore aroma than I would normally get.
I was really disappointed with the results. I had my hopes up that I may notice something really substantial with FWH.
But I will say at least the hops do smell good while I'm collecting my wort.

[quote="Legman"But I will say at least the hops do smell good while I'm collecting my wort. [/quote]
I have to agree with that! I made an Amarillo FWH beer yesterday and the aroma during the steep was amazing.

I wouldn't say the effect of FWH could really be describes as substantial as much as subtle. However, I've made FWH only beers that had a significant hop flavor and aroma. Also, I've made beers with relatively high hopping rates, that ended up as not overly bitter beers.

I make a Cream Ale (more of a Kölsch, but I use corn in it) with Spalt only as FWH. It has that distinctive, if subtle, Spalt flavor and aroma and is not overly bitter. Despite calculating to 35 IBU in a very dry and pale beer, and quite a bit above style guidelines, the bitterness is very much in line with a Kölsch.

I make an all base malx Pale Ale that is loaded with EKG and Saaz in the flavor and aroma additions, but by using Amarillo as FWH it gains a distinctly American Pale Ale flavor profile. This one I hop to 55 IBU in a 1.050 beer, more like an IPA, but it's bitterness seems closer to that of a Pale Ale than an IPA.

I believe that the effect does tend to be greater with larger amounts of low AA hops. Also, you need to use a hop whose presence or absence is going to be noticeable in the beers profile. I often FWH Chinook in a Cascade Pale Ale to accentuate the grapefruit flavor, but I couldn't tell you if it really makes a difference in that one with 4 oz of late hopped Cascade!

I do wonder if variability between brewers using FWH is a result of some unidentified variable in preboil procedures.

Whenever I FWH, I make sure that the hops steep in the hot wort for at least 30 minutes (usually longer) before I crank up the boil. When I collect the wort, it's 160-170F, so I just let the hops steep at that temp. Once 30 minutes have passed, then I turn on the burner, and it usually takes another 30 minutes to get up to 200F. Overall, the hops are steeping at least an hour before the wort starts boiling. What do you guys do?

just-cj wrote:Whenever I FWH, I make sure that the hops steep in the hot wort for at least 30 minutes (usually longer) before I crank up the boil. When I collect the wort, it's 160-170F, so I just let the hops steep at that temp. ... snip

What do I do? I don't waste 30 minutes between the end of sparge and turning on my kettle.

Seriously, though, since I've never done FWH, is that how it's normally done, i.e., is it necessary to let the hops steep for so long? It was my impression that they are just added when runnings are first started, and that there is no delay at all in the process associated with FWH. I'm not entirely sure that even at 170F, "mash out" has fully occurred, i.e., all enzymes denatured, so that delay might well be contributing a little bit to the thinning of your beer slightly. My normal process, which does not include FWH, is to put the kettle of first runnings on the burner so that they can begin heating up while I'm still collecting the runnings from my batch sparges -- unless I know that I'll be blending some back and forth for a partigyle.

Different sparging -- I fly sparge for 60-75 minutes, so I'm not really delaying anything by holding the temp for 30 min before cranking up the burner. I might add ~5 minutes to my wait time. If I was doing batch sparging, I'd probably do it different.

CJ, please don't take this the wrong way, because how you brew your beer is your own business; different strokes for different folks. But I have to ask why you persist with fly sparging if it takes that long. Even if you are obtaining a very high efficiency, that's a LOT of time added to a brew day. I'm sure that I finish all sparging, including multiple vorlaufs, within a half hour, and I'm anxious to try new techniques which will probably reduce that time even further, such as reducing my number of batch sparges from two down to one, and also trying the recently discussed 'flood sparging' and 'punctuated sparging' which will eliminate the time spent on extra vorlaufs. Golly, I might be able to reduce my total time for runnings and sparge down to as little as 15 to 20 minutes.

As I see it, aside from 'efficiency' -- which can be compensated with a little extra grain (and I think that a buck or two more in grain to save nearly an hour of my time is a bargain) -- sparge methods can effect the quality/flavor of our brew in only two ways: if they permit too much husk material which will contribute to astringency, or if they take so long that any enzymes which have not been denatured will continue to thin the beer.

I do excellent vorlaufs, so I've never had a problem with astringency. And with the shortened time of my sparge, I'm probably closer than you to keeping my wort from thinning. I get fairly consistent efficiency of about 82% +/- 2%. I know that I will never try 'fly' sparging because I'd need to replace my bazooka/zapap with a properly designed manifold or false bottom, plus find a way to sprinkle the sparge water. But manifolds/falsebottoms work just as well for batch sparging as a stainless steel mesh bazooka, so you should be able to give it a try. Have you ever tried 'batch sparging'? ... and if not, why not? By the way, I'm not on some crusade to convert flyers to batchers; I'm just curious to learn any reasons why flying is better, because maybe I'm missing something important here. Maybe it's just a lot more fun.

For any newbies out there considering all grain, you should be able to equip yourself for 'batch' sparging a WHOLE lot cheaper and easier than for 'fly' sparging, and if you decide later that you want to move on to 'fly', you won't lose much investment of time or money at all because most of it can be used for flying. Honestly, it should really be a first step for anyone transitioning from extract to all grain.

Bill, the simplest answer is "because that's the way I've always done it and I'm comfortable with it." To expand on that a little, in my system, fly sparging works and works well. I use the sparge time to get other equipment ready, weigh out hops, eat breakfast, check message boards, etc. I have tried batch sparging a couple times, and I've always ended up with a major stuck sparge and a huge hit in efficiency (most likely caused by the stuck sparge). As for thinning the wort, that doesn't happen. After the mash, I do a mashout step at 170F before the lauter/sparge, and my beers have the body and fullness that they are intended to have. So thinning isn't a problem for me.

If I wanted to do batch sparging now, I'd have to buy more equipment (at the very least a conversion kit and bazooka screen-type setup), and that just doesn't make sense when what I'm doing works so well for me.

Besides, I'm not out to save time -- brewing is my meditation, my stress release after a long week of BS at work. Speeding things up is the last thing on my mind.